Sentences with phrase «violated federal privacy law»

EPIC, a nonprofit advocacy group, claims Samsung violated federal privacy law because of its Smart TV's ability to collect and transmit recorded conversations.

The complaint also alleges the defendants violated federal privacy law for failing to provide a required privacy notice.

In response, Ms. Moskowitz released details of her son's behavior to PBS, which Ms. Geidi said violated federal privacy laws.

Comment: One commenter suggested that a notice of information practices that omits disclosure for voluntary reporting of fraud will chill internal whistleblowers who will be led to believe — falsely — that they would violate federal privacy law, and be lawfully subject to sanction by their employer, if they reported fraud to health oversight agencies.

In my opinion, the requirement to disclose competing offers under REBBA violates federal privacy laws and is unenforceable.

Lenders claimed that sharing the CD violates federal privacy law (Gramm - Leach - Bliley Act, or GLBA); however, an exception within the GLBA allows lenders to distribute the CD to third parties, including real estate professionals.

Instead, he testified, TREB was concerned that giving online competitors easy access to the same depth of MLS data — including the sold prices of homes — available to all 34,000 - plus TREB members could violate federal privacy laws.

Not exact matches

In a win for online privacy advocates but a blow to advertisers, a federal judge has ruled Google may have violated wiretapping laws by scanning and reviewing users» Gmails.

The home - rental site filed a lawsuit Monday (June 27) in federal court alleging rules recently passed by the city of San Francisco violate free speech and privacy laws.

The lawyer for Daniel A. Lewis, a college librarian from Amherst, plans to file a lawsuit on Lewis» behalf in U.S. District Court claiming that his rights to possess property — his guns — and receive due process before his permit was suspended were violated along with federal privacy laws regarding his medical records, according to the Buffalo News.

Addressing the plaintiff's argument from First - Amendment rights, the Court held in contrast that the federal non-discrimination laws «do... not violate constitutionally protected rights of free association and privacy, or a parent's right to direct the education of his children.»

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has filed suit in court against the US Department of Education, on the grounds that the federal government has rewritten and weakened FERPA's regulations in a way that violates the language and original intent of the law.

Impermissible Uses.You understand that you may not: • modify, adapt or hack the Service or modify another website so as to falsely claim or imply that it is associated with the Service, AuthorMarketingClub.com, AMC, Author Marketing Club or any other AMC service; • reproduce, duplicate, copy, sell, resell or exploit any portion (including, without limitation, the contents of the AMC email or similar notification, the look and feel of the AMC website, and the contents of the web pages of the Service, use the Service or access the Service without the express written permission of Author Marketing Club; • verbally, physically, or otherwise abuse (including threats of abuse or retribution) any AMC member or AMC employee, agent or officer; • upload, post, host, or transmit unsolicited email, SMSs, or spam messages; • transmit worms or viruses or any code of a destructive nature; • as a Reader Member, utilize the information provided in a Query other than to provide a relevant response to a Specific Query posted by a Author Member; • violate any applicable federal, state or local laws or regulations; or, • plagiarize, violate or otherwise infringe upon the trademark, copyright, patent, trade secret, or any other rights of any person, firm or entity, expressly including but not limited to libel, slander or invasion of rights of privacy, publicity or «moral rights».

You will not, and will not allow or authorize others to, use the Services or the Sites to take any actions that: (i) infringe on any third party's copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret or other proprietary rights or rights of publicity or privacy; (ii) violate any applicable law, statute, ordinance or regulation (including those regarding export control); (iii) are defamatory, trade libelous, threatening, harassing, invasive of privacy, stalking, harassment, abusive, tortuous, hateful, discriminatory based on race, ethnicity, gender, sex or disability, pornographic or obscene; (iv) interfere with or disrupt any services or equipment with the intent of causing an excessive or disproportionate load on the Animal League or its licensors or suppliers» infrastructure; (v) involve knowingly distributing viruses, Trojan horses, worms, or other similar harmful or deleterious programming routines; (vi) involve the preparation and / or distribution of «junk mail», «spam», «chain letters», «pyramid schemes» or other deceptive online marketing practices or any unsolicited bulk email or unsolicited commercial email or otherwise in a manner that violate the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (CAN - SPAM Act of 2003); (vii) would encourage conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any applicable local, state, federal or international laws, rules or regulations; (viii) involve the unauthorized entry to any machine accessible via the Services or interfere with the Sites or any servers or networks connected to the Sites or disobey any requirements, procedures, policies or regulations of networks connected to the Sites, or attempt to breach the security of or disrupt Internet communications on the Sites (including without limitation accessing data to which you are not the intended recipient or logging into a server or account for which you are not expressly authorized); (ix) impersonate any person or entity, including, without limitation, one of the Animal League's or other's officers or employees, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity; (x) forge headers or otherwise manipulate identifiers in order to disguise the origin of any information transmitted through the Sites; (xi) collect or store personal data about other Animal League members, Site users or attempt to gain access to other Animal League members information, or otherwise mine information about Animal League members, Site users, or the Sites; (xii) execute any form of network monitoring or run a network analyzer or packet sniffer or other technology to intercept, decode, mine or display any packets used to communicate between the Sites» servers or any data not intended for you; (xiii) attempt to circumvent authentication or security of any content, host, network or account («cracking») on or from the Sites; or (xiv) are contrary to the Animal League's public image, goodwill, reputation or mission or otherwise not in furtherance of the Animal Leagues stated purposes.

Eight jilted applicants have since filed a class action, alleging that DOJ improperly relied on politics in making hiring decisions and violated privacy laws by culling information from applicants» Web sites without disclosing that it had collected this information, as required by federal law.

The suit alleges that Standard violated myriad U.S. federal and state laws in its practices, including the Federal Wiretap Act, the Illinois Eavesdropping Statute, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act and constitutes «intrusion upon seclusion» (a privacy tort) as well as unjust enrifederal and state laws in its practices, including the Federal Wiretap Act, the Illinois Eavesdropping Statute, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act and constitutes «intrusion upon seclusion» (a privacy tort) as well as unjust enriFederal Wiretap Act, the Illinois Eavesdropping Statute, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act and constitutes «intrusion upon seclusion» (a privacy tort) as well as unjust enrichment.

Comment: One comment suggested that the penalty provisions of HIPAA, if extended to the privacy regulation, would require the Secretary to violate «Appropriations Laws» because the Secretary could be in the position of assessing penalties against her own and other federal agencies in their roles as covered entities.

Comment: Some commenters asserted that the federal government may not preempt state laws that are not as strict as the privacy regulation because to do so would violate the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution.

Earlier this week, a Federal Court ruled in A.T. v. Globe24h.com that a Romanian website violated Canadian privacy laws, and the accepted protocol for online publication of court records, when it scraped Canadian court decisions from CanLII and other sites and then republished them in a manner searchable by Google.

The Federal Court of Canada released a landmark decision finding that the court has the jurisdiction to make an extra-territorial order with world - wide effects against a foreign resident requiring the foreign person to remove documents containing personal information about a Canadian citizen that violates the person's rights under Canada's privacy law, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA).

DMV promotes the free exchange of information, ideas, and opinions, except when the content may invade personal privacy, violate property rights, constitute libel, or be a violation of any applicable federal, state, or local laws.

DMV promotes the exchange of information, ideas, and opinions, except when the content may invade personal privacy, violate property rights, constitute libel, or be a violation of any applicable federal, state, or local laws.

A settlement was reached late last year in a California class action brought by Daniel Matera and Susan Rashkis, who accused Google of violating federal wiretapping and state privacy laws by scanning non-Gmail accounts for advertising purposes.

But employers also must avoid the risk of violating federal and state laws that mandate background checks be conducted in a nondiscriminatory manner, protect against violating applicants» privacy and maintain workers» confidentiality.

Almost a decade ago, the Toronto Real Estate Board became so concerned about new federal privacy rules, it drafted waivers for clients to sign to ensure realtors weren & rsquo; t violating the law, a Competition Tribunal has been told.

Almost a decade ago, the Toronto Real Estate Board became so concerned about new federal privacy rules, it drafted waivers for clients to sign to ensure realtors weren't violating the law, a Competition Tribunal has been told.